IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 

BREIGH D. STRAZZELLA, ) 
 Appellant, ) 
v. ) 
JOE TEJAS, INC., and ) 
UNEMPLOYMENT ) 
INSURANCE APPEAL ) 
BOARD, ) 
Appellee. ) 

ON APPEAL FROM THE 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD 

AFFIRMED 

Submitted: February 1, 2008 
Decided: February 12, 2008 

 This 12th day of February, 2008, upon consideration of the appeal of 
Breigh D. Strazzella ("Strazzella") from the decision of the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board (the "Board") denying her request for a rehearing, it 
appears to the Court that: 

1. On December 24, 2006, Strazzella filed a petition with the 
Board seeking unemployment benefits. She had been employed at a 
restaurant operated by Joe Tejas, Inc. Although not entirely clear from her 
brief, Strazzella appears to admit that she missed a substantial amount of 
work from burns on her left arm from a faulty ice machine, as well as from 
three deaths in her family in August and September 2006. Strazzella claims 
that the absences due to the burns were excused and that she submitted 
obituaries to support her absences related to the deaths in her family. After 
these absences, her employer placed her on notice on December 19, 2006 
that she would be terminated, regardless of the reason, if she did not report 
to work. 

2. Strazzella reacted to the warning by giving her two weeks’ 
notice to quit on December 23, 2006. She claims that her manager, Martin, 
told her that she was not needed for the two-week period. After she filed for 
unemployment benefits, according to Strazzella, Martin claimed instead that 
she had refused to work for those two weeks. 

3. On January 17, 2007, the Claims Deputy found that Strazzella 
was disqualified from receiving benefits. Strazzella appealed that 
determination, and the Appeals Referee affirmed the Deputy’s ruling but 
modified it to award her benefits for two weeks’ pay. Strazzella then 
appealed to the Board, claiming this time that Joe Tejas, Inc. put her on 
notice of termination for no legitimate reason. 

4. A hearing before the Board was scheduled for March 14, 2007. 
Proper notice was sent to Strazzella and to Joe Tejas, Inc. that a hearing was 
scheduled for that date at 1:20 p.m. The notice also informed Strazzella that 
"[f]ailure to appear for your hearing in a timely manner can result in your 
appeal being dismissed." Strazzella failed to appear at the hearing. As a 
result, the Board dismissed her appeal. 

5. After receipt of the dismissal notice, Strazzella filed a request 
for a rehearing with the Board on March 23, 2007, claiming she failed to 
attend the hearing because she was "very ill." On March 28, 2007, the 
Board denied her request because she provided no medical documentation, 
nor did she identify any such documentation. The Board also found that her 
failure to appear was not the fault of the Department, nor the result of 
extraordinary circumstances. The decision was mailed to Strazzella on April 
13, 2007. 

6. Strazzella filed a pro se appeal of the Board’s decision to this 
Court on April 23, 2007.1 In her brief, Strazzella argues that she was too 
sick to attend the hearing. She claims that she called the Board and left a 
message indicating that she could not attend and that she would submit a 
doctor’s note. She also argues that Joe Tejas, Inc. improperly gave her 
notice that they would terminate her without a legitimate reason. 

7. In response, the Board submits that Board regulations permit 
the Board to dismiss the appeal when the appellant fails to appear. Since 
Strazzella was given proper notice and did not timely request a continuance, 
the Board appropriately dismissed her appeal. The Board also points to 
Strazzella’s failure to include any documentation supporting her claim of 
being "very ill." Although she submitted a doctor’s note to this Court 
indicating that she had a severe bacteria infection on March 15, 2007, the 
Board maintains that this Court cannot review evidence which was not 
submitted to the Board in the first instance. Finally, the Board contends that 
this Court should not decide the merits of Strazzella’s appeal because she 
failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. 

8. This Court’s appellate review of a Board decision is limited. 
"In reviewing the decisions of the UIAB [Unemployment Insurance Appeal 
Board], this Court must determine whether the findings and conclusions of 
the UIAB are free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence in 
the record."2 Substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a 
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."3 The 
"substantial evidence" standard means "more than a scintilla but less than a 
preponderance of the evidence."4 The Court "does not weigh the evidence, 
determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings."5 A 
discretionary decision of the Board will be upheld absent an abuse of 
discretion.6 An abuse of discretion occurs when the Board "exceeds the 
bounds of reason in view of the circumstances and has ignored recognized 
rules of law or practice so as to produce injustice."7 The Court reviews 
questions of law de novo to determine "whether the Board erred in 
formulating or applying legal precepts."8 

9. 19 Del. C. § 3322(a) only permits judicial review of a Board 
decision "after any party claiming to be aggrieved thereby has exhausted all 
administrative remedies as provided by this chapter."9 To the extent that 
Strazzella seeks to have this Court decide the merits of her claim for 
unemployment benefits, her failure to appear before the Board and present 
her case there precludes consideration of any evidence she offers to this 
Court.10 As a result, the Court will not consider the doctor’s note that 
should in the first instance have been presented to the Board.

10. The only issue remaining is whether the Board abused its 
discretion when it denied Strazzella’s request for a rehearing. This same 
issue was addressed by the Superior Court in Archambault v. McDonald's 
Restaurant.11 In that case, the Superior Court determined that the Board’s 
decision to dismiss appellant’s case for failing to appear was not an abuse of 
discretion: 

The Board maintains statutory authority to promulgate 
regulations designed to ensure the prompt and orderly 
determination of the parties’ rights. In that regard, the Board 
has adopted Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Rule B 
which provides, in pertinent part, that "[a]ll parties are required 
to be present for a hearing at the scheduled time. Any party 
who is not present within 10 minutes after the scheduled time 
for hearing shall be deemed to waive his right to participate in 
said hearing." The Court cannot conclude that the Board 
abused its discretion by dismissing Claimant’s appeal. This 
Court has previously recognized "the importance of adhering to 
a hearing schedule to efficiently manage and dispose of cases 
and the need to enforce rules such as Rule B to engender 
cooperation from the interested parties." Thus, the Court 
concludes that the Board did not act arbitrarily by dismissing 
Claimant’s appeal for failure to appear.12 

11. Just as in Archambault, the Board in this case did not abuse its 
discretion when it denied Strazzella’s request for a rehearing. Pursuant to its 
authority,13 the Board followed its regulations, provided due notice to all 
parties involved, waited ten minutes after the scheduled hearing for 
Strazzella to appear, and then dismissed her appeal.14 Because the notice to 
Strazzella expressly informed her that "[f]ailure to appear for your hearing 
can result in your appeal being dismissed[,]" Strazzella was aware of the 
consequences if she chose not to appear. Strazzella also failed to seek a 
continuance.15 Although she claims that she called "the Court" on the date 
of her hearing and indicated that she would provide a doctor’s note, there is 
no evidence in the record to substantiate that any such documentation was 
ever submitted. Strazzella did not speak with anyone on the date of the 
hearing, nor did she deliver a note from a physician or any other 
documentary evidence supporting her claim of illness. Considering these 
circumstances, the Board did not exceed "the bounds of reason in view of 
the circumstances . . . so as to produce injustice."16 Accordingly, the Board 
did not abuse its discretion. 

 12. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board is hereby 
AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

__________________________ 

Peggy L. Ableman, Judge